Working in an industry which was a major user of MC (tons) we found that it was nearly impossible to meet the OSHA MC standard without putting
all employees in a major medical monitoring program and respirators. As a result, the industry abandoned the use of MC. Remember, the action level for the MC standard (the only OSHA standard with such) is 12.5 ppm which triggers major work and expense
on the employers part. I doubt one could keep below that level consistently in an teaching lab. For simplicity, get rid of MC.

I have a question for anyone involved in undergraduate Organic Chemistry labs.

Methylene chloride is listed as a recognized carcinogen in California, and it is a B2 probable human carcinogen. As you all know, it is a volatile liquid commonly used in undergraduate
Organic Chemistry labs as the organic solvent in liquid-liquid extractions using a separatory funnel. As many OChem labs lack adequate fume hoods, many colleges do these extractions at the bench, and so are venting methylene chloride in the general laboratory.
Generally, these are not microscale extractions, but are regular lab scale with a 250 or 500 mL sep funnel.

It is a volatile probable human carcinogen and thus I believe that it should be handled in the fume hood and the extraction should also be done in a fume hood. Do you agree or disagree?
If you agree, have you been successful in changing how your department handles methylene chloride in undergrad labs, and if so, how did you successfully argue your case to handle it in fume hoods?

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to secretary@dchas.org.The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.